SchansBlog

Thanks for coming! I plan to post a lot of interesting articles and comment on a wide range of things-- from political to religious, from private to public, from formal writing on public policy to snippets on random observations.

Tuesday, February 28, 2017

dialogue and tradition at Notre Dame

A letter representing a debate at Notre Dame: How does a premier Catholic institution invite the pro-abortion / anti-science President from 2009 and not invite the current President?

Interestingly, the letter-writer admits to idolatry-- directly (Obama as "a personal political idol") and indirectly (race is far more important than far-more-important things).

I could hardly contain my glee at having the first African American President of the United States and a personal political idol of mine, since his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention, speak at my graduation.

My glee was short-lived, however, as for months, groups protested and argued it was inappropriate for a Catholic institution to invite a pro-choice President to speak and be honored at its commencement.

ND's president, Fr. John Jenkins, used "dialogue" and tradition to motivate his invitation to President Obama. Will the same happen this year with President Trump?

Monday, February 27, 2017

addiction (of all sorts) is rough business

Addiction is rough business.

In its most "popular" forms-- performance-impeding substance abuse--
addiction leads to degeneracy and various deficiencies. But addiction (defined
coherently) is much more prevalent than that. For example, you might need to
have Starbucks every morning or a glass of wine at every dinner; play sports
talk radio every time you're in the car; hit your devices at every turn;
reflexively watch national TV news/politics.

In Christian theology, addictions are one form of idolatry. Idols always look
better than they are, deliver less than advertised, and cost you much more than
you can (easily) see.

What to do? In Ephesians 4:22-24, Paul talks about "putting off the old
man" and "putting on the new man". Both "putting off"
and "putting on" require action, discipline, wisdom, and often,
courage. In terms of thoughts, words, and actions, "putting off" is
akin to pulling weeds; "putting on" is akin to planting flowers.
Pulling weeds is a good start, but the goal is for us to have a garden.

From there, Paul follows up with eight verses, applying this principle to
several key categories: the tongue, work, kindness, and anger. For example, in
4:29, he exhorts us to no longer use words that make people less whole, but to
use words that "build others up, according to their needs, that it may
benefit those who listen."

Along the same lines: If you're wondering whether you're an addict on X, see if
you can give it up for a significant period of time. Practice a
"weed/flower" spiritual discipline of giving up X and adding in Z.

Let's get specific. Perhaps you quit watching TV news for two weeks and read a
book or two instead. Stop Starbucks for a month and give $100 to a local
charity. Try silence and meditation in your car for three weeks. For the next
10 weekdays, put your phone down when you get home and don't pick it up until
the next morning.

It's easier to point at people who are clearly a mess. But all of us are a
mess. And God's goals for us include a process of sanctification where we
partner with Him, continue to have our character and skills refined, becoming
more effective in loving God and those around us. Don't let a subtle addiction
get in the way of your enjoying the goodness of God's Kingdom.

Thursday, February 23, 2017

Michael Novak, RIP

By all accounts, Novak was a gentle soul who was productive in terms of his work and innovative in his thinking. From Acton, here are five facts about and six quotes fromNovak.

A Novak quote on research which demonstrates that the way out of poverty for most Americans is to make a
few simple life choices: “Some 97 percent of those who complete high
school, stay married (even if not on the first try), and work full-time year-round
(even at the minimum wage) are not poor. Nearly all
poverty in the United States is associated with the absence of one or
more of these three basic accomplishments”—not with insufficient social
spending or a lack of economic opportunity.

From
Chuck Colson on Michael Novak: "Free, democratic capitalism is like a
three-legged stool, supported by economic freedom, political freedom,
and moral restraint. Today's sub-prime mortgage crisis, which could
threaten the American economy, shows what happens when you forget that
third leg of the stool—moral restraint."

Friday, February 17, 2017

wage subsidies are far better than the minimum wage (well, that is, if you're trying to help the working poor)

If govt is going to try to help the working poor: instead of a higher minimum wage, they should directly subsidize the wages of low-income, working, heads-of-household.

(Before that, I'd stop taxing the working poor through FICA and state income taxes, but that's a separate post. Besides, Dems are so passionate about pounding the working poor with $1,000's of income taxes every year. So let's let the Dems have their fun and focus on this proposal instead.)

Wage subsidies are better targeted than the MW-- only hitting the folks we're really trying to help. Subsidies don't make them more expensive/difficult to hire. (Or is that the point?) It doesn't create *any* unemployment among people who really need to work and get training.

Support for the MW is largely driven by a.) a lack of policy imagination; b.) labor market cartels (unions) who benefit from it; and c.) ignorance about the MW's racist origins and racist outcomes.

Tuesday, February 14, 2017

crazy or unconventional and crazy like a fox?

For their own sake (idolatry ain't good for ya), for the political party they claim (and are damaging), and for the country, I hope that the rabid/fundy part of his opposition continues to fade.

Trump is certainly a mess in some ways and his policy RX's are a mishmash ranging from excellent to horrible. Hopefully, his administration will get some good stuff done. And the opposition party can avoid distractions, hysteria, and the temptation to posture-- to play a useful role in helping us avoid bad policies.

Friday, February 10, 2017

my (really odd) K-12 journey

There are some people posting their K-12 journey on Facebook, particularly those who proudly went to public schools. This seems to be part of the opposition (and often-hysterical response) to Betsy DeVos' nomination as Secretary of Education. Because she advocates for school choice-- through charters (public schools with more flexibility) and vouchers (the GI Bill for K-12)-- the crony capitalists in this arena and partisans have risen in vocal opposition.The flavor of much of this is ironic. These reforms are about providing choice-- to allow competition in markets and to allow choice for individuals. If you consider yourself "pro-choice" in general-- or on the only issue where a lot of people are "pro-choice"-- perhaps you will consider allowing others (particularly the poor and marginal) to exercise a choice that you didn't choose, through charters and vouchers.

Where did I go to school in K-12? I had a really strange path through 11 schools over 10 years of grades 1-12! (I skipped two grades, so I only had ten years. My college path was interesting too, including getting kicked out of school for bad grades after my third semester at George Mason. And I only had a GPA over 3.5 once after 9th grade.)

1.) Kentucky Country Day (Louisville, secular private)

2.) Sacred Heart (Louisville, Catholic)

3.) ?? (Pittsburgh, public, repeating a year in terms of material)

4.) Sacred Heart (catching me back up)

5.) Flanders (rural NY, skipped a grade)

6.) GB Davis

7.) Franklin Academy MS (skipped a grade)

8.) Notre Dame (Catholic)

9.) Franklin Academy HS (public)

10.) Chantilly HS (Fairfax, VA; public)

11.) Robinson HS (public)

In all, I didn't have two years in one school until my junior and senior years in HS. I went to four schools between May 1973 and January 1974. We moved from Pittsburgh back home to Louisville to Malone, NY-- and then moved from a rental house to a house in Malone. Most of the moves were us moving cities or houses (to #3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11). The move to #2 was caused by a fire at #1. Two moves were from elementary to middle and middle to high school (#7, 9). #8 was to get to a better school.

For our four boys, we've done everything, as appropriate to what was best for them and our ability to provide with a professor's salary: public, Christian private, Catholic private, and homeschooling. We had pre-K and K in private (and a bit of Head Start for boy #3 with modest learning disabilities). We had two years of public, until we got through a year of a "pass the trash" teacher for #1 in 2nd grade. Then, we homeschooled for three years. Then, we couldn't do that effectively anymore, especially with three boys in school and #3's challenges. Then, we used private Catholic through 8th grade. In high school, we've done 2.5 years of private for one boy, but the rest of it will probably be public (if that's what's best). What's best for each-- and for our family-- has varied over time. Maybe this is more evident to us, given our two adoptions. But we're thankful to have been able to exercise choice for our boys.

As a final aside, of the 20 folks we surveyed one day when I was in grad school at A&M (PhD's or future PhD's), 19 had attended Catholic schools. The other was raised in a predominantly-Muslim country.

Thursday, February 9, 2017

don't miss out: strive for a fuller testimony

Kent's opening: After reading my post on the value of a “boring” testimony,
my friend Eric Schansberg, Ph.D., emailed me to respectfully challenge
my use of the word “testimony”. I suggested we take it outside and fight
about it. Being more level headed, he offered to write a blog post. I
loved it! I hope you do too.__________________ In his recent post, Kent described boring and exciting “testimonies”.
All of us are sinners. We should all accept God’s grace (Romans 6:23).
But the path we travel to get there—and the stories we tell about that
grace and our salvation—can range from the mundane to something out of
The Jerry Springer Show.Our whole testimony
There is another important sense in which we have testimonies. In the
New Testament, the terms “saved” and “salvation” are used broadly. We
are saved from our sin. But…

Peter notes we’re also saved from a profitless life (I Peter 1:18)

David writes about being saved from adversity and enemies (Psalm 109:31)

Paul says we’re not saved by good works (Ephesians 2:8-9) but to do good works (Ephesians 2:10)

There’s more to our salvation—and our testimony—than merely the path
to our conversion. The ongoing work of a Christian’s life – our whole testimony – should not be boring.We’re walking with an awesome Father who is active in this world. The
Son modeled an exciting life. And we’re empowered through the Holy
Spirit living in us. God wants great things for us as we walk with Him
and work for Him. If your whole testimony is boring, then you’re missing
out!Living an exciting story
I want to follow in the footsteps of Jesus and be a hero in my family,
at work, and with my neighbor. Anybody can love those who are nice to us
(Matthew 5:46). But I want to love difficult people like Jesus did.
Most people can do the easy stuff and avoid the easy temptations. But I
want to be an engaged father who does the difficult things and avoids the difficult temptations.Most people can say good stuff. But I want to say the perfect words,
perfectly. I want to have difficult conversations well—with courage,
tact, and grace. With a bit of experience, patience, and humility, we
can all have some wisdom. But I want to be led by the Spirit to see
things I would not otherwise discern. I want to be empowered by God to
say and do things I can’t do on my own.David writes: “My mouth will tell of your righteousness, of your
salvation all day long…I will come and proclaim your mighty acts” (Psalm
71:15-16). David is not describing his point-in-time salvation; he’s
talking about the daily acts of God in his life.I want to model a godly life for my boys.
And I want to share this testimony with them—how great God is and how
much He wants for us and from us. May all of God’s children strive to
walk with Him—in such a way that they will have an exciting, passionate
testimony about the mighty things God has done in their lives. And may
we pass this sort of vibrant faith along to our children.

Dollars go to providers in each of those cases, but it's indirect. In K-12, the preeminent purpose of dollars is apparently to finance the (monopoly, public-sector) providers.

And then to Andrea's point, well...it doesn't work well-- and can't be expected to work well, with the current arrangements. Monopolies are known for high costs and taking advantage of customers. Govt is known for thick bureaucracies, wasteful spending, mediocre results, and inattention to the vulnerable. Let's fully implement the GI Bill for K-12 and watch great things happen.

Monday, February 6, 2017

troubles with legalism

There are a number of problems with legalism: it often confuses means and ends; it insists on black/white when a matter is gray; it majors in the minors; it usually leads to self-righteousness, judgmentalism, and nasty comments; and so on-- and if it's a lifestyle, it will take you to a small life.

Another tough thing about legalism on a topic (or being a legalist in general). If you get dogmatic, you're vulnerable to the realities of an "X - 1" argument. Here, if driving 56 is unsafe and sinful, then you should drive 55. But really you should drive 54 or 53 or 50...or just stay at home.

The first time I remember something like this: For a time, my brother had become convinced that kissing a girl before marriage was always a sin. After trying various angles, I settled on pretending that holding hands with a girl before marriage was always a sin-- and that I would judge him for holding hands.

One prominent aspect of the ministry of Jesus was dealing with the professional legalists. Think of all of the healings on the Sabbath. They provoked him to righteous anger. Think of Jesus noting that the Pharisees tithed their spices but missed justice. And so on.) If you find yourself hanging out in L territory, be really careful!

C-J article on trade (restrictions)

Made it into the C-J with this op-ed...Our new president often expresses hostility toward international
trade. On this topic, he will find many allies in Congress. There are
winners and losers with trade—and trade restrictions. How can we make
sense of the relevant economics and politics?

It’s easy to
underestimate the value of international trade. Its benefits are
relatively subtle, while its costs are relatively obvious. Consumers
benefit from greater choice, higher quality and lower prices. But it’s
easy to take this for granted. Producers are well aware of their
competition—domestic and foreign. Workers worry about losing their jobs.
The flip side of the good news for consumers is tough news for
producers and workers—somewhere between keeping them on their toes and
driving them out of business.

In contrast, trade restrictions are
often politically attractive. Its benefits are relatively obvious, while
its costs are relatively subtle. When we limit foreign competition, all
of the above is reversed. Again, consumers are less likely to see the
cause and effect. But producers are keenly aware that business is easier
and jobs are more secure with fewer competitors.

Econ teachers
use various principles to explain these ideas. For example, you don’t
need a Ph.D. in economics to understand the value of competition and the
trouble with monopoly power—for consumers and markets.

The most
important of these principles is the practical and philosophical value
of voluntary, mutually beneficial trade. When we engage in trade, both
parties perceive that they benefit, enhancing their well-being and
increasing social wealth. Extending this principle across national
boundaries may be interesting, politically. But it does not change the
underlying economics.

Teachers also use three analogies to make these points.

First,
blockades are an attempt to prevent a country from importing goods
during a war. Likewise, trade sanctions are used to hurt countries by
limiting trade with them. When should we impose blockades or trade
sanctions on ourselves?

Second, boycotts are a
refusal to engage in what would otherwise be a mutually beneficial
trade. We want to impose a cost on a producer—for something they’ve done
that is unrelated to what they sell. To do this, we’re willing to
impose a cost on ourselves, moving from our top choice to a lesser
choice. Trade restrictions are like a self-imposed boycott. When should
we force American consumers to boycott international goods?

Third,
discrimination is a refusal to engage in otherwise-beneficial trade,
because I have a problem with someone—for example, their race or
religion. Discrimination harms the discriminator in material terms, but
they enjoy messing with the other party. Why would we want to mandate
discrimination against those in other countries and do harm to ourselves
and to them?Sometimes, thought experiments can be helpful to
make the subtle more obvious. For example, if we imagine that a trade
restriction is good for our economy, then it should be good for a state
as well. And if it’s good for a state, it should be good for a county.
And if it’s good for a county, it should be good for towns and
neighborhoods. Once we extend the policy far enough, its costs become
quite obvious.

My friend, David Norton takes this a step further
with this parable: A virtuous man would only eat food within ten feet of
living room recliner—cockroaches and the occasional mouse. He could sew
the mouse pelts into clothing and use their guts for thread. Why stop
at “Brexit”—the exit of Britain from Europe? Perhaps we should strive
for “LRexit”—where we each remove our Living Rooms from the global
economy. Conveniently, our Living Rooms already have walls to keep out
the Mexicans, Canadians, Chinese and other neighbors who want to take
our rodent-catching, pelt-sewing and mouse-cooking jobs. And surely, if
we allowed trade, outsiders would undercut our living room “markets” for
mouse—with chicken, fish, and vegetables.

One more parable from
Dr. Steven Landsburg: Imagine that an entrepreneur figures out how to
turn grain into inexpensive, high-quality cars. Grain goes into the
factory. Through a mysterious and efficient process, the entrepreneur is
able to pay good wages and produce a great product. Consumers cheer and
the country applauds the technological advance. But then, a journalist
discovers that the “technological advance” is international trade. The
entrepreneur has been selling the grain overseas, receiving cars in
return. When people hear this news, they are furious and ask legislators
to pass all sorts of restrictions on the entrepreneur.

The extension of mutually beneficial trade—whether domestic or
international—is equivalent to the winners and losers that occur with
technological advance. The president seems to misunderstand this basic
point. Will Congress go along with him, protecting certain jobs and
helping interest groups through bi-partisan crony capitalism—while
harming consumers, markets and the economy as a whole? Or will freedom
and wealth-creating international trade be allowed to grow?

About Me

First and foremost, I am saved by God's grace as manifested most clearly through the atoning death of Jesus Christ-- and thus, adopted into His family. As a result, I increasingly seek to extend His grace to others in my daily life. On the home front, I am a husband and father to four young men (two by adoption and two the more conventional way). Professionally, I am an economist who loves to teach and is active in public policy circles. Vocationally, I am an active writer and the author of three books (one on the book of Joshua; two on public policy-- one secular, one Christian). Finally, I am the co-author of a 21-month discipleship curriculum, Thoroughly Equipped (and a lighter 36-week version), for developing competent lay-leaders in the Church. Related to that work, Kurt and I have two books, Enough Horses in the Barn and Roll Up Your Sleeves.